* Jonathan Callen :
> Torsten Veller wrote:
> > Why is prefix not in IUSE?
> >
> > IUSE lists "the USE flags used by the ebuild.
> > Historically, USE_EXPAND values and ARCH were not included..."
> >
> > prefix is not an ARCH.
> >
>
> While prefix is not an ARCH or a in USE_EXPANDed variable,
Hi all,
I've been wanting to make some changes to this eclass for a while since I've
been putting on some bandages to make things work. This is a rather major
overhaul. Basically packaging upstream got a lot more regulated since obz and
I wrote the original eclass [1], so we can simplify many th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Torsten Veller wrote:
> Why is prefix not in IUSE?
>
> IUSE lists "the USE flags used by the ebuild.
> Historically, USE_EXPAND values and ARCH were not included..."
>
> prefix is not an ARCH.
>
While prefix is not an ARCH or a in USE_EXPANDed var
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:59:44 +0100, Fabian Groffen
wrote:
> With the current route where EAPI=3 will simply be EAPI=2 +
> offset-prefix support, and EAPI=4 will be EAPI=3 + some other stuff, the
> following question arose:
>
> Should an ebuild using an EAPI that has offset-prefix support make
Hi,
Ciaran McCreesh :
> Since kdebuild-1 is to be removed from PMS immediately, it's going to
> go from Paludis in the next release too. We need to warn users about
> this, since they'll no longer be able to uninstall kdebuild-1
> packages they have installed. Please review the following GLEP 42
Hi,
Fabian Groffen :
> On 16-12-2009 09:29:07 +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Втр, 15/12/2009 в 19:59 +0100, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> > > Should an ebuild using an EAPI that has offset-prefix support
> > > make the use of that support mandatory or optional?
> >
> > I think no. Without real tes
* "Jonathan Callen (abcd)" :
> EAPI=2
> IUSE="test"
> src_prepare() {
> + use prefix || EPREFIX=
Why is prefix not in IUSE?
IUSE lists "the USE flags used by the ebuild.
Historically, USE_EXPAND values and ARCH were not included..."
prefix is not an ARCH.
BTW: don't we bump EAPI to n
# Diego E. Pettenò (16 dic 2009)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to build with glibc 2.10 (bug #297210), ignores flags
# (bug #241982), lacks a Gentoo maintainer, never bumped
# since its adding in 2005, substandard ebuild QA-wise
# (does not die on _any_ failure).
#
# Removal on 2010-02-14
sys
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 23:19:22 Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 01:46 AM, Daniel Black wrote:
> > I did email the debian maintainer too. no response yet. They have
> > interactive builds though and I guess we do too now. Will be a royal pain
> > if every CA/software did the same thing.
# Diego E. Pettenò (16 dic 2009)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# No upstream release since 2005, unused in Gentoo, smaller
# QA issues and some worrisome warnings from X11 functions.
#
# Removal on 2010-02-14
dev-ruby/ruby-xlib
> Le 15/12/2009 08:09, Ulrich Mueller a écrit :
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:
> >>
> >> On the other hand this may be something for treecleaners? A package
> >> that has not been bumped for 7 years? With at least three releases
> >> since, and a bumprequest open for at leas
On 16-12-2009 09:29:07 +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Втр, 15/12/2009 в 19:59 +0100, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> > Should an ebuild using an EAPI that has offset-prefix support make the
> > use of that support mandatory or optional?
>
> I think no. Without real testing that package works in prefix
Le 15/12/2009 16:19, Peter Volkov a écrit :
we will force all metadata.xml files have strict order of tags: first
then other tags. Currently there are about 200 ebuilds with
different order http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=279206#c4 .
Others and I actually make use of the order in metad
В Втр, 15/12/2009 в 19:59 +0100, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> Should an ebuild using an EAPI that has offset-prefix support make the
> use of that support mandatory or optional?
I think no. Without real testing that package works in prefix there is
no need to bother and create illusion that it does
14 matches
Mail list logo
